The Economist: The era of nuclear de-escalation is over

The Pentagon declared in August that the nuclear de-escalation that followed the Cold War was over. In its place was a new rivalry between nuclear and near-nuclear powers. It is a more complex and less predictable race than the old bipolar rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, making the situation more dangerous, The Economist writes.

Facing new nuclear threats will be a real test for America at a time when its resources are stretched thin and its policies have become more isolationist, writes The Economist . The US must reassure allies that the American nuclear umbrella still protects them, and unfortunately it will have to expand its nuclear arsenal . Get it wrong and it will encourage the spread of nuclear weapons to friends and foes alike, making America and the world less safe.

Evidence of new dangers is everywhere, the article says. China is building hundreds of missile silos in the desert north of the country. Russia’s president “bragged” about using nuclear weapons and threatened to target more of them at Europe. Iran, which is poised to launch another conventional strike on Israel, is closer than it was five years ago to turning enriched uranium into warheads. North Korea said it was “strengthening” its nuclear program. This week, Donald Trump promised to build an “Iron Dome” missile shield to protect the United States. He explained his decision: “It would only take one maniac (to start a nuclear war).”

The current situation is in stark contrast to the post-Cold War era. From 1986 to 2023, the number of warheads in the world fell from 70,000 to 12,000, according to the publication. The end of the Cold War led to cuts in defense spending and arms control.

The United States has reduced its arsenal while maintaining a powerful deterrent. Washington now has a smaller “triad” of nuclear weapons that can be launched from land, air, and underwater.

But recently, nuclear threats have multiplied and changed. The number of nuclear warheads is growing again: China had several hundred warheads a decade ago, and by 2035 it intends to increase this number to 1,000, becoming the third nuclear superpower. Nuclear technology has begun to spread into other areas. Russia, according to The Economist, can place a bomb in space; North Korean warheads can reach the continental United States. The Houthis have modern missiles, albeit with conventional weapons. China, Iran, Russia and North Korea cooperate militarily and may come to agreements on missile technology.

The Pentagon fears that this race will exhaust America’s arsenal: will it have enough warheads to deter its adversaries? The hope that shields like Iron Dome can protect America is misplaced; they are less effective against long-range missiles. The question any American president will face is whether to sacrifice Los Angeles to protect Seoul.

America's allies realize that its power is not unlimited, and the promise of extended deterrence sounds less credible than it once did.

South Korea, the article says, is already doubting the US nuclear umbrella and may develop its own nuclear bomb, with 70% of South Koreans believing it should. Japan may have similar logic. Europe is debating whether it has enough British and French nuclear weapons to deter Russia if the US leaves  NATO . If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia may do the same. Nuclear proliferation will lead to global destabilisation. The more fingers that press the red buttons, the greater the chance of miscalculation. The likelihood of conventional war will also increase if countries want to prevent their enemies from crossing the nuclear threshold.

In response, the US, according to The Economist, should be prepared to build a larger and more diverse nuclear arsenal when the New START Treaty expires.

The Biden-led Pentagon has already begun developing new weapons, such as a nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile. The military is studying how to quickly “load” warheads onto existing launchers if Russia and China gain an advantage. Trump, if elected, would likely continue to build up the arsenal.

Biden is also seeking to reassure allies by sending more nuclear bombers and submarines to Europe and Asia and working more closely with allies to ensure they are not making empty American promises.

Trump and some isolationist Republicans might argue that none of this is necessary to protect the United States. They are wrong, the paper writes. Extended deterrence is necessary because it helps prevent the destabilizing spread of nuclear weapons. This logic, according to The Economist, has kept America, and perhaps even its adversaries, safe for 80 years. In a dangerous world, it would be foolhardy to allow the American nuclear umbrella to weaken, the author concludes.